e-mail
It’s interesting to look at how other countries are dealing with the same things that we talk about on a daily basis here on the blogs. An article this morning concerning abandonment laws and Japan has me pondering the status of abortion, adoption and personal beliefs within the country.
The article, on SperoNews, states that Japan is following in the footsteps of a recent decision in India to help “promote adoption over abortion” by giving the mothers a place to leave their “unwanted babies.” (Their words, not mine.)
Hospital officials said the box was intended to ensure absolute privacy for those parents who wanted to abandon their newly born babies. The “box” is an incubator which is always working and monitored by a nurse of the hospital. Babies can be put there through an opening in the hospital wall.
Most American Safe Haven laws leave room for a Mother to take a child to a hospital, fire station, police station or, in some states, a church. The laws in the States require the Mother to actively hand the child, most often under one month of age and sometimes under 72 hours since birth, to someone who is actively working at the place she has brought the child. Leaving the child on a doorstep of one of the approved stations falls into a grey area since many states specifically mandate that a child be handed to a human being. (This is to protect the child when you consider that, in my Husband’s fire station, no body goes outside in the evening unless there is a fire.)
The “hole in the wall of the hospital” ideal is somewhat baffling to me though it is understandable when you realize the social stigmas on unwed mothers far exceed the judgements placed on women in our country. However, even mothers who leave their children at an approved placed under Safe Haven law now have the ability to leave their medical history so that their child may know certain important things. In fact, in Ohio, it is strongly encouraged that a Mother leave her medical history.
Moving on:
Clearly, they added, from a legal point of view, the hospital would have to answer for the safety of the children. All the same, “the government will do everything possible to help through adoption and tax reduction campaigns”.
Tax reduction campaigns for whom? For the unwed mother who feels as though she can’t parent her child because of financial burdens? Or for the adoptive parents who will then get a double blessing: reduced taxes AND a baby. Interesting question.
I decided to look up some information concerning Japan, abortion and adoption to get a better feel for why this new law is being implemented. Most interestingly, I came across the site Being-a-Broad which features information for people who will be living abroad and help for situations they might encounter. The facts they had on abotion in Japan are interesting.
Terminating a pregnancy is a controversial issue, but it is a decision made by about 350,000 women in Japan every year, and a small percentage of them are Western women who have the added difficulty of being in a foreign country. The Western women I spoke with agreed that certain aspects of the experience made it less unpleasant than they felt it would have been in their home countries. The attitude towards abortion is quite different here from that in our home countries; in Japan it is considered a ‘necessary sadness’ and a natural process. Counselling is not provided, nor is it assumed that you will suffer any kind of moral dilemma.
So, if abortion is considered a necessary sadness in this country, why are we suddenly pushing for adoption? Furthermore, the Buddhist beliefs subscribed to by much of the population cause me to question, even further, this recent push.
Many women or couples in Japan who have terminated a pregnancy, suffered a miscarriage, or had a stillborn baby choose to honour the soul of this child through a practice called mizuko jizo. Mizuko means ‘child of the water’ and is used to refer to the soul of a child who has been returned to the gods, and Jizo is the name of the Buddhist god who protects and guides that soul on its journey to another world.
Abortion is regarded as the parents willingly making a decision to return a child to the gods, sending a child to a temporary place until such time that it is right for the child to come into this world, either into the same family or another one. The child is returned because the parents, at that time, would be unable to provide enough love, money, or attention to this child, without it being to the detriment of their present family. Practising mizuko jizo allows the parents to provide a certain amount of attention to the child, who is regarded as a member of their family: to apologise to the child and to ask for forgiveness from their child for being unable to bring them up.
That gives us a look at abortion beliefs and views in Japan. For more answers (or, rather, questions!) on this topic, which includes an in depth look at how adoption is viewed in the country, this post will be continued…
Your post is missing several things, probably because your news article demonstrates a poor understanding of Japanese culture and history.
1) Most of Japan is Shinto, not Buddhist. There are Buddhist influences in Shinto, but the two religions are very different. I’m not sure why, but American reporters usually conflate the two.
2) Part of the reason why abortion is much more common than here has to do with the history of contraception. Because most contraception in the 20th century was produced by American corporations, politicans decided to keep Yen at home by prohibiting the Pill. However, because funds from abortions stayed at home, they were widely supported. It’s not a question of increasing “profits” so much as it was not boycotting American imperialism.
3) In my experience researching related topics in Japan, most Japanese women didn’t feel any moral qualms about their abortions. If your culture doesn’t make it a moral question, chances are you aren’t going to think about it in moral terms.
4) While India’s trying to a) prevent a population crisis in 75 years caused by a severe gender ratio imbalance and b) minimize the colonial implications of foreign adoptions, Japan’s problems and objectives are completely different. Instead of fears of a future population crisis being caused by a gender imbalance, there’s a perceived current population crisis due to the high cost of raising children generally, and the insanely high opportunity cost women face for childbearing.
IOW, Japan’s problems have more in common with the Muslim riots in suburban France than it does with India and Chinese gender imbalances.
I meant to say “It’s not a question of increasing “profits” so much as it was boycotting American imperialism.” I apologize for the editing error.
Thanks for the info!
You’re welcome. =)
This is very interesting. I am really guilty of living in an ethnocentric world. I am happy to have the opportunity to grow by looking at these issues through a different cultural lens.